Monday, March 31, 2008
... /////

in which people located environmental issues that deserve, in their opinion, more effort from the government. Despite the intense media hysteria, CO2 emissions do not belong among the top environmental issues. The most important issues (some of them written positively, some of them negatively, the context makes it clear) according to the U.S. citizens are

drinking water

pollution of rivers, lakes, and ecosystems

smog

forest preservation

acid rain

tropical rain forests

national parks

greenhouse emissions

ozone layer

nature around "my" home

urban sprawl

extinction.

Well, I would surely put greenhouse emissions at the last place here (and below many other environmental topics) but the 8th place is what the U.S. citizens think. If the governments planned to spend 1% of the GDP for the 8th environmental problem, it is not hard to see that the governments would probably need more than 100% of the GDP for all environmental issues combined. And how would you pay for the other sectors?

Because people are still not buying this weird fashionable propaganda about a dangerous global warming, it is not too surprising that Al Gore, the de facto leader of the IPCC and similar disgraceful institutions, is planning to strengthen his attempts to brainwash the people. His new threat is that he wants to waste USD 300 million for pure propaganda.

His commercials will create unlikely bedfellows - for example, Pat Robertson will sleep with Al Sharpton; see NewsBusters' comments. I suppose that Al Gore assumes that he will cover the "whole" political spectrum. Well, I guess that the spectrum is not wide enough for me. Most likely, some dimensions such as intelligence (and uncorruptability by rich quasireligious zealots) might be absent on the Sharpton-Robertson axis. But frankly speaking, it is likely that millions of Americans will perceive themselves as a certain linear combination of these two Gentlemen - as Sharpertsons and Roberptons of various kinds. ;-/

snail feedback (1)
:

I thought you might like this image. A British potato chip manufacturer has decided to print the carbon footprint of each bag of chips on the bag of the bags. It's a sign of the times: the company seems to be doing something popular and responsible, which will lead to more of their chips being eaten, and presumably a bigger footprint (The chip bag states that 74 grams of carbon is emitted during the production of one bag of crisps weighing 34.5 grams.) Anyway, here's the image: http://www.sciencephoto.co.uk/images/showFullWatermarked.html/T930487-Carbon_footprint_labelling-SPL.jpg?id=849300487